Monday, May 14, 2012

Mike Smith, David Habecker, Jeff Baysinger, and I had agreed in 2008 to be named as plaintiffs for a Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) (www.ffrf.org) case against the governor of Colorado regarding the unconstitutionality of the annual proclamation of the National Day of Prayer. Plaintiffs of the FFRF felt that this proclamation was, and continues to be, exclusionary and divisive. It oversteps the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.
On the 10th of May 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the FFRF. This is a step in the right direction, for no government entity should tell their constituents when to pray, how to pray, and what to pray to. Government sponsored prayer is divisive and unnecessary in a secular state.

I had announced this at the 13th of May Humanists of Colorado monthly meeting. I however did very little. It is the hard work of the FFRF attorneys and staff who should get all the credit. I am honored to have been a part of this momentous occasion for secular values and freedom in the state of Colorado.

State appeals court rules in FFRF’s favor

Gubernatorial Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations unconstitutional

May 10, 2012

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled
today in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s challenge,
originally filed in 2008, against gubernatorial proclamations of a
Colorado Day of Prayer.
Judge Steve Bernard, with concurrences by Judges Alan Loeb and Nancy Lichtenstein, overturned a lower court decision, ruling in favor
of FFRF’s challenge of Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations: "A
reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the
message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political
community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored
status.”

Bernard wrote that “the six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations
[2004-09] at issue here are governmental conduct that violate the
Preference Clause [of the Religious Freedom section of Colorado’s
Constitution].” The content is “predominantly religious; they lack a
secular context; and their effect is government endorsement of religion
as preferred over nonreligion.”

The proclamations “have the primary or principal effect of endorsing
religious beliefs because they convey or attempt to convey a message
that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.”
The 74-page decision noted that the “inclusion of biblical verses and
religious themes,” statements urging “that individuals will unite in
prayer” and the governor’s signature, imprimatur and seal make “no doubt
here that the religious message is attributed to the Governor.”

“The proclamations serve an exclusively religious purpose,” and are
“addressed to the public generally . . . extend[ing] beyond the walls of
the legislative assembly, or the boundaries of the graduation hall, to
the borders of the State.” The proclamations “reflect an official belief
in a God who answers prayer. At the same time, for those who do not
believe in such a God, the proclamations tend to indicate that their
nonbelief is not shared by the government that rules the State. In so
doing, they undermine the premise that the government serves believers
and nonbelievers equally.”

The decision continues, “They are not a small part of something larger
that serves a secular purpose. Rather, they stand, individually and
collectively, as a call to ‘actual worship or prayer’. . . . Indeed, the
proclamations, by themselves, are reasonably viewed as exhortations to
participate in ‘offficial prayers’ that have been composed as ‘part of a
religious program carried on by the government.’ This effect is
amplified by the biblical verses and religious themes."

The appeals court noted that Gov. Bob Ritter even spoke at a private
Colorado Day of Prayer celebration held on the steps of the Capitol in
2007.

The judges prefaced their decision by pointing out that “our decision
does not affect anyone’s constitutionally protected right to pray, in
public or in private, alone or in groups,” but that religious liberty is
“abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.”

The court said the individual has the “right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority.”

Bernard noted that “all the proclamations of the Colorado Day of Prayer
were issued in response to annual requests from the National Day of
Prayer Task Force,” with an overtly proselytizing and theocratic mission
seeking gubernatorial support.

FFRF won a federal district court ruling, FFRF v. Obama,
in 2010 declaring the federal National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
FFRF demonstrated the religious origins of the 1952 and 1988 acts of
Congress, with Rev. Billy Graham and other evangelists pushing for the
laws. The evangelical National Day of Prayer Task Force — based at Focus
on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs — has essentially acted
as an arm of the government since 1988. In 2011, the 7th Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals threw out FFRF’s standing.
But the Colorado appeals court affirmed standing, without offering a
legal judgment on the National Day of Prayer itself. No court has ever
upheld the day of prayer on its merits under the Establishment Clause.
The appeals court is remanding the case to the trial court to consider whether a permanent injunction should be entered.

“We’re exulting over the fact that reason has prevailed, and
constitutional rights have been affirmed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor,
FFRF co-president.

FFRF thanks its local plaintiffs and members Mike Smith, David
Habecker, Timothy G. Bailey and Jeff Baysinger, who made possible the
challenge. FFRF congratulates its litigation attorney Richard L. Bolton.